Outraged about the leaked manager reactions. Will be hard to attract any talent with such middle management.
Outraged about the Google diversity memo?
231–240 of 872 posts
Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?
#232This whole episode leaves me a bit perplexed because in tech we keep missing the mark when it comes to diversity. I work at Microsoft. The back of my ID badge has our mission statement: Empower every person and every organization on the planet to achieve more. To me, that mission is a blueprint for how I can easily approach issues of diversity and inclusion. It says "everyone". To me it's a simple matter of gaining e…
I see this mentality pop up time after time: How dare you say there are differences in women's capabilities! Except of course, here are some things women are _better_ at.
Sorry, but no. Either we are equally capable by nature and any differences in outcome are due to upbringing ("nurture"), or there are biological differences which means you have to accept there very well may be things women are less capable of as well as the opposite.
I'm firmly in the first camp and think it's mostly if not only upbringing and cultural biases, but you don't get to shun the notion that women are less capable at some things while at the same time claiming there are many things women are actually more capable of. Don't open that door.
Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
I made the grave mistake of trying to express that point on Twitter. Twitter seems to be a poor vehicle for nuanced debate at the best of time, but it's a dumpster fire right now full of raging people who don't understand what you've just said. I was in SV last year for a couple of months during the election, and everyone I met were all paid up members of the church of political correctness up front, but when you spo…
> Twitter seems to be a poor vehicle for nuanced debate at the best of time Understatement of the century. How on earth can you expect to have "nuanced debate" with only 140 characters?
> How on earth can you expect to have "nuanced debate" with only 140 characters?
Oh come now, it seems to work fine for Trump! /s
Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?
#234Oh man, voices of reason sound nice. What happened to reason instead of hollow emotion? I am right, you are wrong, and you shouldn't be listened to, because you are a nazi, and nazis are bad, and you deserve bad things happening to you.
Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?
#235IMO the best comment from there: Giulio Prisco said... The results of this incident are easy to predict. Now everyone at Google (and everyone in large tech companies, and everyone in academy) knows that they can be fired for expressing opinions that dissent from the party line. Of course they'll shut up for fear of losing their job and the means to support their family. But they won't change their position. If anythi…
If a person is engaging in reasonable dissent then why is this true: "If anything, their position will be radicalized."?
The (true) implication is that their reasonable dissent actually is a bland cover for a position that is much more radical once it is reduced to its core propositions.
Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not sure I get your objection. It's like saying that Clinton couldn't win the election because she had far-left/communist sympathisers. I am sure she did. And I am also sure these were a marginal portion of her electoral base. I don't see how these extremists would stand in the way of a broader movement. I am not bullish on Trump long term, but not because some extremists also support him, but because of his own…
It might be important I clarify that I'm not talking about the right, I'm talking about the far right (re-branded as the "alt-right"). This does not include most people who vote Republican or consider themselves traditional conservatives. The traditional conservative movement is dying out. Quite literally, it has a demographic problem that it is not sure how to resolve. In it's place, you have the alt-right, which do…
Ok, but agreeing with the infamous memo doesn't make someone a far right extremist. The parent comment suggested it will push them to vote for a harder-line movement but there is a big margin between being opposed to affirmative action and white supremacists.
Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He was fired because he basically said women are underrepresented in IT because they are biologically unsuited for it. I don't understand why people keep repeating that statement. He said that biological differences explain the different ratios of men and women, NOT that women are not suited for tech jobs. He explicitely did not say (nor mean) that a woman can't be a good software engineer. Just that on average, mo…
> He explicitely did not say (nor mean) that a woman can't be a good software engineer. > Just that on average, more men than women will show the features needed for software engineers. Read those two sentences you wrote again. You'll be shocked when you see it.
I'm not seeing it. Help me out? It's not a contradiction, if that's what you're implying. Have you ever taken a statistics class?
Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He was fired because he basically said women are underrepresented in IT because they are biologically unsuited for it. I don't understand why people keep repeating that statement. He said that biological differences explain the different ratios of men and women, NOT that women are not suited for tech jobs. He explicitely did not say (nor mean) that a woman can't be a good software engineer. Just that on average, mo…
> He explicitely did not say (nor mean) that a woman can't be a good software engineer. > Just that on average, more men than women will show the features needed for software engineers. Read those two sentences you wrote again. You'll be shocked when you see it.
[deleted]
Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right now, we have two indicators: The way the swings on the special elections are going, which are all violently swinging away from the Republicans, even if Republicans end up winning, it's barely by single digits in double digit districts. And the polling, which in aggregate, across all demographics, has been continually moving more and more negative each passing month. Even polls like Rasmussen, which have a tradi…
I think this this is the talking points for the Democrats but its not very convincing. > The way the swings on the special elections are going, which are all violently swinging away from the Republicans. The Republicans won all 6 special elections. > Take Ossoff's challenge in Georgia. He lost by 4 points > the Republicans were required to spend $25 million He lost. And it was the Democrats who spent $23 Million (the…
> The Republicans won all 6 special elections.
By slim margins in what should have been extremely safe districts.
Then they lost the next 2, one of which by way a 30 point swing.
The swing is not something you can hand-wave away. It's one of the best metrics we have as a predictor for 2018.
> The republicans spent like $3 Million dollars.
Estimates on how much was spent on the election range from $40-$60 million.
$23 million is the amount of fundraising that was done by Ossoff's campaign, independent of the DCCC or traditional DNC PACs, which means none of it came from their "warchest". The DCCC provided an additional $5 million of TV ad spends in Ossoff's favor.
On the Republican side, they spent way more than $3 million. The NRCC spent about $6.7 million on TV ad spends. Paul Ryan's SuperPAC spent about $5 million on airtime and $2 million on additional costs. Two other conservative PACs raised an additional $1 million.
https://www.issueone.org/money-behind-expensive-u-s-house-ra...
The breakdown is very complicated, because money can come in from dozens of different types of sources, and the numbers aren't usually finalized until long after the election ends.
The $23 million figure, however, was mostly crowd-sourced in small donations. So to be very clear, you can say that came from citizens who identify as Democrats and be generally right, but to say it came from Democrats as an organization or a political entity, that is not correct.
Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
It might be important I clarify that I'm not talking about the right, I'm talking about the far right (re-branded as the "alt-right"). This does not include most people who vote Republican or consider themselves traditional conservatives. The traditional conservative movement is dying out. Quite literally, it has a demographic problem that it is not sure how to resolve. In it's place, you have the alt-right, which do…
Ok, but agreeing with the infamous memo doesn't make someone a far right extremist. The parent comment suggested it will push them to vote for a harder-line movement but there is a big margin between being opposed to affirmative action and white supremacists.
I absolutely agree that agreeing with the memo doesn't make someone a far right extremist, and I don't believe I ever stated or insinuated that. That's a bit of a non-sequitur, though. This is the exact point I was referring to:
they won't change their position. If anything, their position will be radicalized. For example, from classical liberal to alt-right.
This is been a common sort of mantra since Trump won the presidency. Whenever we have a controversial event like this, people make a statement that any actions by those on the left will only further radicalize people in the other direction. I don't think it's true, but most of all, I don't think that other direction really leads anywhere useful. For the reasons I outlined previously.